Defunct copyright troll Righthaven seeks resurrection

Righthaven's former chief executive wants to appeal a lost infringement case.

Copyright troll Righthaven, which famously went defunct last year after an epic failure in trying to make money for newspapers by suing sites that reposted even parts of news stories, is seeking a second life.

Righthaven’s former chief executive wants a judge to resurrect the firm in order to appeal a court decision that found it was not infringement for an individual, who had no profit motive, to repost an entire story online.

The copyright dispute is one of great importance in today’s digital world: whether reposting an entire article, without permission, can amount to fair use of that work.

A Nevada federal judge ruled last year that a citizen’s reposting of the story in an online forum was fair use in a decision that, in part, led to the unraveling of the Las Vegas-based trolling operation. Righthaven was ordered to pay legal fees and expenses in the case that amounted to more than $60,000, which the firm has refused to pay.

Without an appellate ruling affirming the fair-use decision, the opinion is not binding on other courts. Fair use is a copyright-infringement defense when a defendant reproduces a copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism, commentary, teaching and research. The defense is analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

Steve Gibson, Righthaven’s former chief executive, said if Righthaven prevails on appeal it could "return to a going concern" and satisfy its debts. But Gibson needs the court-appointed administrator of the company to allow the appeal to the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals.

Unfortunately for Gibson, the administrator won’t authorize it, arguing that Righthaven should pay its debts—more than $200,000—instead of litigating further.

"Attempting to prevent the appellate process from coming to full fruition is not a just goal and hardly within the realm of equitable action," Gibson wrote (PDF) a Nevada federal judge Monday in demanding permission. "The right of appeal is a fundamental linchpin of our democratic structure."

Gibson added that none of Righthaven’s assets are being used to pay for the appeal.

Righthaven borrowed a page from patent trolls in 2010 and was formed with the idea of suing blogs and websites that repost newspaper articles—even snippets of them—without permission. But along the way, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others began to chip away at the business model.

The case Gibson wants to appeal to the San Francisco-based appeals court concerns Vietnam veteran Wayne Hoehn, who prevailed in a Righthaven copyright lawsuit seeking up to $150,000 in damages for posting the entirety of a Las Vegas Review-Journal editorial to a small online message board.

The lawsuit against Hoehn, one of hundreds of Righthaven’s lawsuits, accused him of unlawfully posting all 19 paragraphs of a November 2010 editorial. Hoehn posted the article, and its headline, "Public Employee Pensions: We Can’t Afford Them" on medjacksports.com to prompt discussion about the financial affairs of the nation.

Nevada Federal Judge Philip Pro ruled that the posting was fair use of the article, and ordered Righthaven to pay attorneys fees and costs.

Righthaven initially was winning and settling dozens of cases as defendants paid a few thousand dollars each to make the cases go away.

Righthaven’s clients included Stephens Media of Las Vegas and MediaNews of Denver, both mid-size publishers of dozens of daily newspapers.

But Righthaven never prevailed in a case that was defended in court.

Ironically, Righthaven sought—as payment—the domain names owned by the people it was suing, and now it has lost its own domain name and any other available assets in the process.

Contracts between the companies and Righthaven showed that Stephens Media and MediaNews granted Righthaven permission to sue over the newspaper chains’ content in exchange for a 50 percent cut of all the settlements and jury awards. Most important, the agreement did not grant Righthaven license to use the content in any other way.

The EFF called the arrangement a "sham," and judges hearing Righthaven cases agreed, saying Righthaven had no legal standing to sue.

Gibson also contends that, since Judge Pro found that Righthaven did not have a right to sue Hoehn for infringement, Pro should not have declared Hoehn’s posting fair use nor granted legal fees.

It's things like this that make me wonder if shares in popcorn makers would be a good idea. Either that or starting my own company, with all these crazy lawsuits demand has got to be going through the roof.

It's things like this that make me wonder if shares in popcorn makers would be a good idea. Either that or starting my own company, with all these crazy lawsuits demand has got to be going through the roof.

This. Unfortunately, most popcorn producers and distributors are private or conglomerates.

Gibson also contends that, since Judge Pro found that Righthaven did not have a right to sue Hoehn for infringement, Pro should not have declared Hoehn’s posting fair use nor granted legal fees.

What kind of tortured logic is that?! We sued you illegally, so it's illegal for us to lose!

I have to agree and that's the first thing I caught when read the article. Then I re-read it to make sure I was actually reading what I thought they were saying. I mean seriously, how do they present these arguments without laughing at how ridiculous they are? Do they have to inject themselves with Botox to paralyze the facial muscles? Either that or the really scary option is: They actually -believe- them.

We shouldn't have sued you, so you shouldn't have ruled against us. Ummm... yeah. And they want this motion to be granted... get this... SO THEY CAN CONTINUE DOING THE SAME THING THEY JUST SAID THEY SHOULDN'T BE DOING.

Gibson also contends that, since Judge Pro found that Righthaven did not have a right to sue Hoehn for infringement, Pro should not have declared Hoehn’s posting fair use nor granted legal fees....nor granted legal fees....nor granted legal fees....nor granted legal fees.

I SMELL A NEW INDUSTRY!!!

Hire yourself out as an unrelated third party, to aggressively sue for hire, as a harasser / attacker.Call your company "Legal-Assaults-R-US", or maybe "Blackwater at Law".

Gibson also contends that, since Judge Pro found that Righthaven did not have a right to sue Hoehn for infringement, Pro should not have declared Hoehn’s posting fair use nor granted legal fees.

What kind of tortured logic is that?! We sued you illegally, so it's illegal for us to lose!

IANAL, but I think on the former issue they might be correct. The lack of standing led to summary judgment, and I don't think summary judgments are precedental. Righthaven's lack of standing meant that the actual matter of fair use became irrelevant, and the dismissal preceded any substantive argument on that point -- argumentation which, furthermore, Righthaven did not have standing to present as be considered as good faith representatives of the copyright owners anyways.

Consider the possible hypothetical case: I violate your rights, and hire an incompetent lawyer through a front to sue myself for that violation, with the intent of receiving a judgment absolving me of my violation; here in the real world, that doesn't work because, since the lawyer didn't have standing to represent you, his incompetence doesn't impact the actual status of my violation against you. This hypothetical is not actually all that far from what happened here: Righthaven put forwards a piss-poor case against fair-use, and if the fair-use judgment for their incompetent litigation stands, that actually deprives Stephens Media of the ability to defend their own IP (not that I'm saying Stephens would've won on their own merits, but they should have the right to sue without that precedent hanging over their heads).

On the legal fees front they're on much shakier ground. Even — perhaps especially — in the case of summary judgment legal fees and penalties are still on the table. Otherwise frivolous lawsuits would be an effective way to deplete foes' resources.

Gibson also contends that, since Judge Pro found that Righthaven did not have a right to sue Hoehn for infringement, Pro should not have declared Hoehn’s posting fair use nor granted legal fees.

What kind of tortured logic is that?! We sued you illegally, so it's illegal for us to lose!

IANAL, but I think on the former issue they might be correct. The lack of standing led to summary judgment, and I don't think summary judgments are precedental. Righthaven's lack of standing meant that the actual matter of fair use became irrelevant, and the dismissal preceded any substantive argument on that point -- argumentation which, furthermore, Righthaven did not have standing to present as be considered as good faith representatives of the copyright owners anyways.

Consider the possible hypothetical case: I violate your rights, and hire an incompetent lawyer through a front to sue myself for that violation, with the intent of receiving a judgment absolving me of my violation; here in the real world, that doesn't work because, since the lawyer didn't have standing to represent you, his incompetence doesn't impact the actual status of my violation against you. This hypothetical is not actually all that far from what happened here: Righthaven put forwards a piss-poor case against fair-use, and if the fair-use judgment for their incompetent litigation stands, that actually deprives Stephens Media of the ability to defend their own IP (not that I'm saying Stephens would've won on their own merits, but they should have the right to sue without that precedent hanging over their heads).

On the legal fees front they're on much shakier ground. Even — perhaps especially — in the case of summary judgment legal fees and penalties are still on the table. Otherwise frivolous lawsuits would be an effective way to deplete foes' resources.

Gibson also contends that, since Judge Pro found that Righthaven did not have a right to sue Hoehn for infringement, Pro should not have declared Hoehn’s posting fair use nor granted legal fees.

What kind of tortured logic is that?! We sued you illegally, so it's illegal for us to lose!

IANAL, but I think on the former issue they might be correct. The lack of standing led to summary judgment, and I don't think summary judgments are precedental. Righthaven's lack of standing meant that the actual matter of fair use became irrelevant, and the dismissal preceded any substantive argument on that point -- argumentation which, furthermore, Righthaven did not have standing to present as be considered as good faith representatives of the copyright owners anyways.

Consider the possible hypothetical case: I violate your rights, and hire an incompetent lawyer through a front to sue myself for that violation, with the intent of receiving a judgment absolving me of my violation; here in the real world, that doesn't work because, since the lawyer didn't have standing to represent you, his incompetence doesn't impact the actual status of my violation against you. This hypothetical is not actually all that far from what happened here: Righthaven put forwards a piss-poor case against fair-use, and if the fair-use judgment for their incompetent litigation stands, that actually deprives Stephens Media of the ability to defend their own IP (not that I'm saying Stephens would've won on their own merits, but they should have the right to sue without that precedent hanging over their heads).

On the legal fees front they're on much shakier ground. Even — perhaps especially — in the case of summary judgment legal fees and penalties are still on the table. Otherwise frivolous lawsuits would be an effective way to deplete foes' resources.

Gibson also contends that, since Judge Pro found that Righthaven did not have a right to sue Hoehn for infringement, Pro should not have declared Hoehn’s posting fair use nor granted legal fees.

What kind of tortured logic is that?! We sued you illegally, so it's illegal for us to lose!

IANAL, but I think on the former issue they might be correct. The lack of standing led to summary judgment, and I don't think summary judgments are precedental. Righthaven's lack of standing meant that the actual matter of fair use became irrelevant, and the dismissal preceded any substantive argument on that point -- argumentation which, furthermore, Righthaven did not have standing to present as be considered as good faith representatives of the copyright owners anyways.

Consider the possible hypothetical case: I violate your rights, and hire an incompetent lawyer through a front to sue myself for that violation, with the intent of receiving a judgment absolving me of my violation; here in the real world, that doesn't work because, since the lawyer didn't have standing to represent you, his incompetence doesn't impact the actual status of my violation against you. This hypothetical is not actually all that far from what happened here: Righthaven put forwards a piss-poor case against fair-use, and if the fair-use judgment for their incompetent litigation stands, that actually deprives Stephens Media of the ability to defend their own IP (not that I'm saying Stephens would've won on their own merits, but they should have the right to sue without that precedent hanging over their heads).

On the legal fees front they're on much shakier ground. Even — perhaps especially — in the case of summary judgment legal fees and penalties are still on the table. Otherwise frivolous lawsuits would be an effective way to deplete foes' resources.

Gibson also contends that, since Judge Pro found that Righthaven did not have a right to sue Hoehn for infringement, Pro should not have declared Hoehn’s posting fair use nor granted legal fees.

What kind of tortured logic is that?! We sued you illegally, so it's illegal for us to lose!

IANAL, but I think on the former issue they might be correct. The lack of standing led to summary judgment, and I don't think summary judgments are precedental. Righthaven's lack of standing meant that the actual matter of fair use became irrelevant, and the dismissal preceded any substantive argument on that point -- argumentation which, furthermore, Righthaven did not have standing to present as be considered as good faith representatives of the copyright owners anyways.

Consider the possible hypothetical case: I violate your rights, and hire an incompetent lawyer through a front to sue myself for that violation, with the intent of receiving a judgment absolving me of my violation; here in the real world, that doesn't work because, since the lawyer didn't have standing to represent you, his incompetence doesn't impact the actual status of my violation against you. This hypothetical is not actually all that far from what happened here: Righthaven put forwards a piss-poor case against fair-use, and if the fair-use judgment for their incompetent litigation stands, that actually deprives Stephens Media of the ability to defend their own IP (not that I'm saying Stephens would've won on their own merits, but they should have the right to sue without that precedent hanging over their heads).

On the legal fees front they're on much shakier ground. Even — perhaps especially — in the case of summary judgment legal fees and penalties are still on the table. Otherwise frivolous lawsuits would be an effective way to deplete foes' resources.

Gibson also contends that, since Judge Pro found that Righthaven did not have a right to sue Hoehn for infringement, Pro should not have declared Hoehn’s posting fair use nor granted legal fees.

What kind of tortured logic is that?! We sued you illegally, so it's illegal for us to lose!

IANAL, but I think on the former issue they might be correct. The lack of standing led to summary judgment, and I don't think summary judgments are precedental. Righthaven's lack of standing meant that the actual matter of fair use became irrelevant, and the dismissal preceded any substantive argument on that point -- argumentation which, furthermore, Righthaven did not have standing to present as be considered as good faith representatives of the copyright owners anyways.

Consider the possible hypothetical case: I violate your rights, and hire an incompetent lawyer through a front to sue myself for that violation, with the intent of receiving a judgment absolving me of my violation; here in the real world, that doesn't work because, since the lawyer didn't have standing to represent you, his incompetence doesn't impact the actual status of my violation against you. This hypothetical is not actually all that far from what happened here: Righthaven put forwards a piss-poor case against fair-use, and if the fair-use judgment for their incompetent litigation stands, that actually deprives Stephens Media of the ability to defend their own IP (not that I'm saying Stephens would've won on their own merits, but they should have the right to sue without that precedent hanging over their heads).

On the legal fees front they're on much shakier ground. Even — perhaps especially — in the case of summary judgment legal fees and penalties are still on the table. Otherwise frivolous lawsuits would be an effective way to deplete foes' resources.

Gibson also contends that, since Judge Pro found that Righthaven did not have a right to sue Hoehn for infringement, Pro should not have declared Hoehn’s posting fair use nor granted legal fees.

What kind of tortured logic is that?! We sued you illegally, so it's illegal for us to lose!

IANAL, but I think on the former issue they might be correct. The lack of standing led to summary judgment, and I don't think summary judgments are precedental. Righthaven's lack of standing meant that the actual matter of fair use became irrelevant, and the dismissal preceded any substantive argument on that point -- argumentation which, furthermore, Righthaven did not have standing to present as be considered as good faith representatives of the copyright owners anyways.

Consider the possible hypothetical case: I violate your rights, and hire an incompetent lawyer through a front to sue myself for that violation, with the intent of receiving a judgment absolving me of my violation; here in the real world, that doesn't work because, since the lawyer didn't have standing to represent you, his incompetence doesn't impact the actual status of my violation against you. This hypothetical is not actually all that far from what happened here: Righthaven put forwards a piss-poor case against fair-use, and if the fair-use judgment for their incompetent litigation stands, that actually deprives Stephens Media of the ability to defend their own IP (not that I'm saying Stephens would've won on their own merits, but they should have the right to sue without that precedent hanging over their heads).

On the legal fees front they're on much shakier ground. Even — perhaps especially — in the case of summary judgment legal fees and penalties are still on the table. Otherwise frivolous lawsuits would be an effective way to deplete foes' resources.

Gibson also contends that, since Judge Pro found that Righthaven did not have a right to sue Hoehn for infringement, Pro should not have declared Hoehn’s posting fair use nor granted legal fees.

What kind of tortured logic is that?! We sued you illegally, so it's illegal for us to lose!

IANAL, but I think on the former issue they might be correct. The lack of standing led to summary judgment, and I don't think summary judgments are precedental. Righthaven's lack of standing meant that the actual matter of fair use became irrelevant, and the dismissal preceded any substantive argument on that point -- argumentation which, furthermore, Righthaven did not have standing to present as be considered as good faith representatives of the copyright owners anyways.

Consider the possible hypothetical case: I violate your rights, and hire an incompetent lawyer through a front to sue myself for that violation, with the intent of receiving a judgment absolving me of my violation; here in the real world, that doesn't work because, since the lawyer didn't have standing to represent you, his incompetence doesn't impact the actual status of my violation against you. This hypothetical is not actually all that far from what happened here: Righthaven put forwards a piss-poor case against fair-use, and if the fair-use judgment for their incompetent litigation stands, that actually deprives Stephens Media of the ability to defend their own IP (not that I'm saying Stephens would've won on their own merits, but they should have the right to sue without that precedent hanging over their heads).

On the legal fees front they're on much shakier ground. Even — perhaps especially — in the case of summary judgment legal fees and penalties are still on the table. Otherwise frivolous lawsuits would be an effective way to deplete foes' resources.

The defendant still has legal bills to pay for having the gall to defend himself from the illegal case, he should be compensated for that alone

On the legal fees front they're on much shakier ground. Even --- perhaps especially --- in the case of summary judgment legal fees and penalties are still on the table. Otherwise frivolous lawsuits would be an effective way to deplete foes' resources.

The defendant still has legal bills to pay for having the gall to defend himself from the illegal case, he should be compensated for that alone

Which, unless I'm very much mistaken, was the entire point of my last paragraph: that absent restitution for legal fees, frivolous lawsuits would be a real danger to defendants, and for that reason summary judgment on matters of standing would not take legal fees and other penalties off the table. This is in contrast to the substance of the suit, which I am given to understand gets no legal weight if summary judgment is delivered.

To reiterate my specific understanding (which I didn't think was actually that unclear): Righthaven lost on summary judgment, primarily on the issue of standing. The granting of legal fees is justifiable since lack of standing, if anything, made the expenses incurred by defendent that much less reasonable. The ruling that the particular usage in question was fair use is, by contrast, rather unjustifiable since Righthaven did not have standing to raise that question, nor was the summary nature of the judgment sufficient to establish it.

Which, unless I'm very much mistaken, was the entire point of my last paragraph: that absent restitution for legal fees, frivolous lawsuits would be a real danger to defendants, and for that reason summary judgment on matters of standing would not take legal fees and other penalties off the table.

I'm guessing the confusion arises from the phrase "on much shakier ground". It could be interpreted as a bit tepid and ambiguous, though personally I see it as a matter of individual writing style, especially since the rest of the paragraph gave it more context.

Myself, I'd like to see the lawyer claiming that he shouldn't pay legal costs because he didn't have standing to sue face contempt charges for the gall of it. Or see his filthy lying tongue leap forth from his mouth and strangle him to death. Sadly the likelihood of either happening is about equal.

On a more serious note, as he didn't even have the grounds to sue he ought to have to pay legal costs plus punitive damages both to punish and to compensate the defendant for the unwarranted stress and inconvenience.

There's only one lawyer crazy enough to join Righthaven in their fight for injustice . . .

"Quick, Tara! To the Carrion-mobile!"

ROFL!

Righthaven and others alike should have their asses sent down the river for fucking extortion. They're filth I have zero respect for them and I stopped buying all media after MU was shutdown illegally. I won't even download or talk about their products ever again thanks in part to services like Righthaven.

I refuse to fund tyrants that would love to see this whole world under a dictatorship. Lets just thank god these assholes are old and will kick the bucket soon and their business model will die with them. I can't wait to take a big steamy shit on their graves.